Sanders Warren Feud | QT Politics

Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Feud Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were clearly
at odds during the 7th Democratic Debate in Des Moines, Iowa, for the first time at this
level since the democratic primary began. Not unusual was a minor disagreement over
policy—with Sanders opposing a trade agreement that Warren supports. Their heated disagreement over what was said
during a private meeting, however, was unusual, to say the least, as was their post-debate
squabble. Sanders and Warren, sometimes described as
the first and second most progressive Senators in the country have, up until now, been allies
both on and off the debate stage. They’ve known each other since before Warren
entered politics, and have often referred to each other as friends. Then, just weeks prior to the Iowa caucus,
and days before the Iowa debate, the political truce and personal friendship seem to have
broken down. In this video, I’ll to talk about the context
and consequences of this new progressive beef. I’ll address, if not answer, how this dispute
came about, what was and wasn’t said, and who does and doesn’t have credibility when
it comes to a variety of claims surrounding the conflict. I’ll also discuss the wider ramifications
of a fault line developing in the progressive movement, in hopes of answering the question: What really matters? – Back in December of 2018, The New York Times
reported that Sanders and Warren had met privately. That report claimed that neither Senator had
sought each other’s support, nor had they discouraged one another from running in the
2020 election—although a pertinent story to the recent feud denies that latter claim. Both Warren and Sanders would soon join the
race, and given their apparent co-operation throughout 2019, most observers believed that
the two had made some kind of non-aggression pact during this private, one-on-one meeting. A full year would go by before any details
about the content of the meeting would be made public by either Sanders or Warren. Then, just days before the Iowa debate, two
stories emerged that would change everything. Politico published an article claiming that
the Sanders campaign had provided volunteers with talking points aimed at criticizing the
electability of various top candidates in the primary race, including Elizabeth Warren. On Warren, specifically, the document said: “I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional] In fact, she’s my second choice! But here’s my concern about her. The people who support her are highly educated,
more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what. She’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic
Party. We need to turn out disaffected working-class
voters if we’re going to defeat Trump.” It’s worth noting that we don’t really know
who wrote or approved of this list of talking points. If Politico had discovered that it came from
Sanders himself, or a top-level advisor, like Jeff Weaver or Nina Turner, we probably would
have heard about it. But, it might have come from a staffer with
authority over volunteers. It might have come from a volunteer. It might have come from a random troll who
managed to get into their slack group—or even a plant from another campaign or political
group interested in seeing a rift emerge between Warren and Sanders. Whatever the case, to me, the argument made
here is not a particularly negative or aggressive attack. In fact, in a recent video of mine, as it
happens, I argued that Julian Castro was correct to point out that Warren would be a less divisive
nominee for the Democratic party than either Sanders or Biden. Was I trashing Sanders here? No. He’s my favourite candidate in the field,
despite the fact that I acknowledge that a slightly less progressive option would be
more acceptable for more conservative Democrats. I was just pointing out that that’s a fair
point, much like this document of dubious origin makes a fair point against Warren’s
electability. She is supported more by wealthier and more
educated people, who are in turn, more dependable voters. And yet, Warren’s reaction seemed to be fairly
dramatic. “I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is
sending his volunteers out to trash me…Bernie knows me, and has known me for a long time. He knows who I am, where I come from, what
I have worked on and fought for, and the coalition and grassroots movement we’re trying to build.” It’s possible she over-reacted because she
didn’t understand the full context of the story. Perhaps she just read the headline from Politico, “Bernie campaign slams Warren as candidate
of the elite” Warren likely would’ve read this as to be
a violation of a secret non-aggression pact. It’s also possible, however, that Warren did
understand the full context, and was cynically attempting to inflame the issue to shake up
the dynamics of the race, and in turn, potentially increase her polling and fundraising. Indeed, it didn’t take long before the Warren
campaign was fundraising off the story, sending out an email that referenced the alleged Sanders
campaign memo, and argued: “This type of attack isn’t about disagreeing
on the issues—it’s about dismissing the potency of our grassroots movement.” The fundraising email would go on to rehash
discredited arguments about Sanders causing unusual levels of division in the Democratic
party: “As a party, and as a country, we can’t
afford to repeat the fractionalism of the 2016 primary. To win in November, we need a nominee who
can unite a broad coalition of Democrats.” Ironically, claiming that Warren can unite
a broad coalition of Democrats, and by implication, that Sanders cannot, seems to speak to his
electability with exactly the same level of hostility as an argument that she doesn’t
draw in unlikely voters. It is noteworthy that Warren’s decision to
fundraise over the controversy comes just a couple weeks after news broke that her fundraising
for the fourth quarter of 2019 had dipped down to 21.1 million dollars, far behind the
34.5 million dollar haul reported by the Sanders campaign. The second story broke just two days later. CNN published a story with the headline: “Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in
private 2018 meeting that a woman can’t win, sources say” Those sources were apparently Warren campaign
staffers or advisors, as well as Warren herself. As CNN reported: “The description of that meeting is based
on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the
encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting. After publication of this story, Warren herself
backed up this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement Monday, “I thought
a woman could win; he disagreed.” It’s theoretically possible that among the
four sources were Bernie staffers, but the CNN story likely would have indicated that
if it were the case. No one other than Warren affiliates or Sanders
affiliates would’ve been able to give credible second-hand accounts of the meeting. Obviously, only Sanders or Warren could give
first-hand accounts. It is literally a he-said, she-said situation. While the CNN article published the account
from Warren’s team as if it were fact, Bernie Sanders—the only other first-hand witness
of the meeting—denied the account. This was noted in the article, but when the
dispute was brought to the debate stage for the 7th Democratic debate, which was, as it
so happens, hosted by CNN, once again, Warren’s side of the story was treated gospel, even
immediately after Sanders denied the account, once again. – So, not a huge surprise there—CNN is biased
against Sanders. During the 7th Democratic Debate, both Sanders
and Warren were given a chance to reiterate what they had already put out in the press. Warren confirmed that Sanders had told her
a woman couldn’t win. Sanders denied the claim, citing several facts
as evidence: -Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote, making
the underlying claim somewhat illogical -Sanders had deferred to Warren in 2015—and
would not have run had she decided to run then
-As far back as 30 years ago, he was encouraging the idea of a woman running for president Indeed, here is Sanders saying that a woman
could win the presidency, back in 1988: While not pushing the issue on stage, Warren
didn’t back down either, answering the question.. (how did you feel when Sanders) by saying… (I disagreeed…) The tension over this issue, however, was
not limited to the debate itself. At the end of the event, Elizabeth Warren
refused to Bernie Sanders’ hand. The body language, to me made her look petty,
as handshakes are typically offered freely as signs of party unity and civility. But a hot mic actually picked up the audio
of the exchange, so let’s listen in. – I’ve often wondered over the years whether
Bernie and Liz, who have often claimed to be friends, really are friends, or whether
they’re just strategic allies and their claims to friendship were just for the cameras. This exchange sounds to me like one between
genuine friends and are genuinely upset with each other—which is kind of heartbreaking. If that is the case, the feud that has emerged
between Sanders and Warren would seem to be a real—a dispute rooted more in personal
feelings of betrayal than in political strategy. That said, there are clear, predictable political
consequences of the tiff, and plausible tactical motivations. The rift between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren could potentially benefit either or both candidates. For Sanders, the fight means casual supporters
might be increasingly motivated to tout Sanders as the only real progressive in the race. Antiestablishmentarians on the fence may also
lean more readily toward Sanders, as the media appears to repeatedly side with Warren on
matters that seem very much in dispute. On the other hand, Warren appears to benefit
most from the conflict. In the fourth quarter of 2019, her fundraising
dipped, as Sanders brought in another smashing haul. In the polls, she has also been suffering,
both nation-wide and in Iowa. In order to have a chance of winning the Iowa
Primary, Warren’s campaign would want to have a game-changing moment during the 7th Democratic
Debate. That indeed happened, both because of the
on stage drama, and because of two new stories that came out in Politico and CNN just days
before the event. So, the timing of the feud is pretty fishy. Other competing campaigns could also benefit
significantly from a progressive rift, as the co-operation between Warren and Sanders
seemed to aid both candidates. While we’ve seen aggressive attacks involving
Biden and Harris, Biden and Castro, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg, the leading progressives had
long refused to attack one another—on or off the debate stage. Everyone from Donald Trump to the DNC to the
mainstream media have also, from time to time, demonstrated animosity toward one or both
of Sanders and Warren. Understanding the complex, sometimes incoherently
overlapping interests of various potential actors is important because, as we’ve seen,
the origins of this spat are murky, to say the least. Whatever their cause, the split between Sanders
and Warren could have wide-sweeping consequences for the American left. If they fight, so too will their followers,
and a divided progressive movement is unlikely to accomplish much. One labor leader, speaking to the Intercept,
captures much of concerns of progressive observers of the new rift, and takes it one step further
than I would. Sara Nelson, president of the Association
of Flight Attendants-CWA said: “These new hostilities have been needled
and fostered by people who want to maintain control in this current system. It’s the age-old ruling-class strategy of
divide and conquer. The only way the people win is through solidarity. So stop beating up on each other, figure out
how to find common ground, and get back to talking about the issues that matter, like
health care, the dignity of all work, and the existential threat of climate crisis.” The only place I part with Nelson here is
that I would not necessarily assume that the wedge was an intentional move by the establishment. I, personally, am a suspicious of both Politico
and CNN, both news organizations have recurrently woven pro-establishment bias into their reporting,
and I have on several occasions pointed out anti-Sanders smears propagated by CNN, its
programs, and its hosts. YouTube channels that have spent a lot more
time on this than I have, have identified endless occasions when progressive politicians
have been misrepresented, quoted out of context, or otherwise unfairly criticized with straw-men
arguments by mainstream media organizations, including CNN and Politico. That said, there is little evidence to suggest
that the spat between Warren and Sanders was designed by the mainstream media, or democratic
establishment. Plenty of explanations of possible. Sanders may have told Warren a woman was unelectable,
and she held her breath on the matter until she found out about the electability talking
points—which perhaps he secretly drafted himself. Or, perhaps Warren’s campaign planted those
talking points to initiate a context of conflict, in which she could float a lie about what
Sanders said in their one-on-one meeting. Or, perhaps the conflict was drummed up by
some other nefarious actor. Or, perhaps, it has been the result of a series
of honest misunderstandings. We’ll likely never know. But regardless of the cause of the rift, the
effect is the same. Since the debate, both candidates have shown
signs of at least attempting to move passed the feud. Still, supporters have continued to bring
up the matter in campaign events. While the fight between two old friends could
potentially be resolved in a single discussion, healing a divided progressive movement is
another matter. Sanders supporters have lost trust in Warren,
and vice versa. At the end of the day, the greatest chance
either Warren or Sanders has of winning the democratic primary is if the other is willing
to drop out, put their full political weight behind the other, and in turn be offered a
cabinet position—perhaps even the vp slot. The power of a Sanders/Warren ticket, or a
Warren/Sanders ticket, however, is significantly reduced if the supporters of one candidate
hate the other. While I, personally, have preferred Sanders
as a candidate, I have long-standing sentimental attachments to Warren, as well. After Warren fought to pass the CFPB, I had
high hopes that she would run for the Presidency in 2016. When, instead, Sanders entered the race, I
was surprised, given his long-standing status as an independent, and policy preferences
that were quite aligned to my own—far to the left of every Democratic nominee since
FDR. When Sanders far exceeded the expectations
of most, I was delighted. So, I certainly have a pro-Sanders bias, but
also a only slightly milder pro-Warren bias as well. All the same, heartbreaking as it may be,
I have very little concern for the health of the friendship between Warren and Sanders. If their personal relationship is permanently
poisoned—so be it. What really matters is their political alliance,
and strength of the progressive movement. While both Sanders and Warren may be interested
in pushing past their personal fallout, neither seems willing to accept the blame, and admit
that they were the liar. Clearly, one of them did lie. But again, that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that, if elected, either of
these two would be by far the most progressive president the United States has seen in several
decades. Both have a proven track record of getting
progressive things done. Both have incredibly progressive plans, and
whatever their personal faults, are unlikely to fail to fight for a medicare for all healthcare
system, a wealth tax, sweeping environmental reforms, and a host of other progressive changes. For any of that to happen, Donald Trump needs
to be defeated in the general election, and Joe Biden needs to be defeated in the primary
race. Added together, the supporters of Warren and
Sanders far exceed the supporters of Biden. Divided, they certainly do not. For a progressive to with the nomination,
it is highly likely that it will be necessary for the supporters of Sanders or the supporters
of Warren to switch their support toward the more plausible candidate. Not only would a progressive candidate need
to win more delegates than the next candidate, they would also likely have to secure a majority
of delegates—that’s 50% plus one—as if the convention goes to a second round, the
super delegates will have the opportunity to cast votes—potentially against the prevailing
wishes of Democratic voters. So, that’s really what’s at stake here, with
the Warren Sanders beef. Progressive voters now have to decide whether
this trivial dispute will cause them to go down with the ship of their favorite candidate,
or whether they’re willing to look past personal gripes, and vote for the most likely progressive
alternative to Joe Biden. Will they think strategically, or emotionally? Will they ask, who do I love most? Or, will they ask… What really matters?

100 Replies to “Sanders Warren Feud | QT Politics”

  1. It looks like democratizing tendencies around the world are pointing to a Sanders election, not that that's really an accurate political gauge, but the election of Modi, Pope Francis, human rights protests all over the world where they never would've been before. I'm a Yang supporter but I don't think he can win with Sanders in the same race

  2. Btw, classy move by Steyer, I think, that he pretended he didn't know what they were saying to each other before the audio leaked.

  3. To me it seems like Warren is really shooting herself in the foot here and putting all her eggs in one basket of her becoming president, why would you burn your bridges with your number 1 ally who may become president very soon? Takes her from being more than likely a key ally and cabinet member to being on the outside of a potential Sanders presidency

  4. It was interesting how the Bernie Sanders campaign researched if Warren could be VP and be in a member of the cabinet.

  5. Recent polls show that this hurt Warren and helped Sanders. A poll came out today that showed Bernie leading with women voters and Warren dropped. I believe Bernie gain 8 points and Warren dropped 7 points.

  6. Warren is pulling a textbook middle schooler play, spreading false rumors as a last ditch effort in trying to win prom queen.

  7. My primary choice is Yang, however I do think Sanders means well and he’s pretty consistent. I just can’t stand the idea of socialism in the US

  8. Bernie really showed class and rose above the rest and it really resonated with people weird in this time of negative base attacks.

  9. As much as I love your debate prediction/analysis videos (and I do—I really admire the depth you bring to it, and the way you make clear what your lenses are), it’s good to see some non-debate videos from you! Clicked on it the instant it appeared.

  10. It's not a feud. It was a smear attack from Warren. This is all on her. Bernie doesn't have a beef with Warren nor is he acknowledging one – though he has enough justified beef to open a Wendy's. Warren, meanwhile, is staying true to her Native American birthname: "Knife In Back". #DropOutWarren

  11. If she mentioned she wanted to be president and he responded with "it's gonna be really hard this time with all of the heightened sexism in the age of Trump" (or something to that effect) then I can see why Warren would take that poorly. It's like telling your best friend that you want to major in philosophy and your friend responds with "you're gonna have to consider your job prospects after college if that's your major." In either case, the advice is perfectly sound but doesn't sound like enthusiastic support.

    Some people feel that the only appropriate response in such a circumstance is an enthusiastic "Good for you! You can do it!" I think for the Buzzfeed crowd that may seem like the right answer but I personally disagree.

    But whether or not you agree about always showing fawning support for your friends plans as the first response, the point is that this still wouldn't constitute any form of sexism. So there would be no reason to fault Bernie as a politician for this especially given that it was a personal conversation and not a public essay on supporting female politicians.

    So unless he really said "a woman absolutely cannot win", "no woman can ever win" or "no woman SHOULD ever win" then this really isn't an issue. Now be honest, does any serious person believe he said any of those comments?

  12. The timing of the leaked audio was suspicious. They "found" their own audio right in time to continue the story for an extra day. Seems staged

  13. The fact that she hasn't just dropped out and endorsed Bernie is another among many points of evidence that she doesn't actually care about the progressive agenda . She just wants to be important.

  14. I found myself unsubscribing from a lot of political commentary channels lately, just a lot of samey spammy videos flooding my feed, but this one is different. Thanks QT for another excellent, level headed analysis, keep it up, you're great!

  15. Warren doesn't pull anyone from across the aisle. Bernie is a much more intelligent choice because he's the only candidate that is for the people, even Republicans are starting to figure it out.

  16. I have to disagree on this one, this is not a feud, this is a machete through the back. And I also find the narrative that they should "bury the hachette" and "unity" very silly. Let's be real, if all this really was just a misunderstanding between friends, she would have talked with Sanders, realized he wasn't a sexist, and moved on. Instead she bolstered the media, our political adversaries and haters and stuck I knife in our movement. OUR MOVEMENT. She's a snake. Warren supporters–your move

  17. “If their Personal relationship is Permanently Poisoned, so be it. What matters is their Political alignment, and the Progressive movement.”

    That’s a lot of Ps.

  18. warren is a faux progressive, she didn't endorse bernie in 2016 for a vp slot with hllary. this time she might not endorse bernie and wait until the dnc to steal the nomination from berie again to endorse biden for a vp slot

  19. If the movement is dumb enough to be derailed by Warrens actions then it was doomed from the start. That being said not many people are just going to deny the reality of the situation Warren caused. If she is stupid enough to create this situation then she isnt qualified to be president… if shes deceitful enough to create this situation she isnt morally fit(based on most ideologies) to be president… the ball is in Warrens court now if shes serious about what shes told us in the past then when the time comes she will bow out. There is only so many times people are willing to accept dishonesty before they give up on dealing with the owner of that dishonesty.

    Polls seem to reflect that.

  20. warren lies lists:
    -being native american (until recently she apologised)
    -fired for being prengant
    -sending her kids to public shool
    -her father being a janitor
    -the first professor of color in havard
    -implying bernie is a secret mysogynist

  21. Are we still pretending she has a chance at winning the nomination?
    Also all her supporters now seem to be previous HRC voters that were never going to support Bernie anyway because he had the nerve to run against their queen in 2016.
    Personally not here to trash her but I've moved on. I believe many other progressives have too. Time to back the campaign with the most grassroots support to defeat Trump and reshape the trajectory of the country.

    That being said, always nice to have a new QT Politics video 😀

  22. I think it's Bernie & Warren agaionst Biden and Klobuchar on Super Tuesday who will win the Midwestern/Plain states?

    Mayor Pete has had his "please clap" moment he's done

  23. Yang 2O2O

    Just as a side note Greg Mankiw endorsed Yang’s plan.

    “He also explains why Yang’s UBI proposal would not be regressive. American macroeconomist who is currently the Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Mankiw is best known in academia for his work on New Keynesian economics. Mankiw has written widely on economics and economic policy. As of April 2016, the RePEc overall ranking based on academic publications, citations, and related metrics put him as the 23rd most influential economist in the world, out of nearly 50,000 registered authors. He was the 11th most cited economist and the 9th most productive research economist as measured by the h-index. He wrote the textbook on economics taught in colleges today: Principles of Economics.”"

  24. I'd say, call me crazy, that Warren's move completely backfired! She thought she could have her campaign "suggest" sexism and she'd leave it vague and voters would start to doubt Bernie. Nope. She might even not get to viability in Iowa and New Hampshire because of her stunt. She may have pushed Bernie over the edge.

  25. Make sure you are registered to vote. A vote for anyone else besides Bernie is a vote for Joe Biden and then Donald Trump, it’s that simple.

  26. This is generally how I feel as well. I'm bias towards Bernie, as he's my #1 pick, and these allegations seem absurd, but my loyalty is to the movement.

  27. Warren wouldn’t run in 2016 against Hillary. Now she runs and expects Bernie to bow out.
    When taken solely on record and video evidence, I don’t believe Warren.
    Either way, “leaking” this, whether lie or semi-truth, was a stab that is unforgivable in supposed “friends”
    Bernie has continued to refuse to say an unkind word about her, when there are so many things that, if he wanted to, he could say to undermine Warren. Her ancestry lie, her “my father was a janitor “ lie, her “I got fired for being pregnant lie”, her Medicare for All lie, and so forth. It is these things and more that lead people to call Warren a snake. If any “friend” made public personal attacks on me, I would feel betrayed and believe that person was a snake.

  28. Shortly before this all started, the Warren team brought on staffers who came from Kamala Harris' campaign. Harris' staffers came mostly from the 2016 Clinton campaign.

    I'm not saying that there's a group of overconfident staffers going from campaign to campaign and sinking it through their own sheer incompetence, buuuut…

  29. As a Republican, I just want to say thank you for these videos, I like being able to know everything happening in these debates and such, thank you.

  30. The fact the "conversation" was used as a political ploy is what makes it a loss for Warren. It stinks and people smell it for what it was.

  31. Warren has surrounded herself with a ton of Obama and Hillary staffers that would like to see that divide and probably have been the instigators of this whole thing, pushing Warren saying that this is a good tactic, sadly Warren either went along with a poor tactic or willingly went along with it, thinking she's one with the establishment now and on their team.
    I don't know her mind, but she better understand who her real friends are before it's too late. Maybe it already is.

  32. This all seems to have dramatically sunk Warren’s campaign. I seriously hope she has the humility and tact to drop out and endorse Sanders if he needs it for the primary.

  33. Basically Warren was desperate af since she was losing momentum. Her CNN incident backfired. Bernie continues to lead and encourage people to go out and vote because of his values and policies. End of story.

  34. My favorite part of this is Tom Steyer just wanting to say hi to Bernie during the post-debate discussion. Like you can't even be mad, he just wanted to say hi to him. It's kind of adorable

  35. I think it really hurt Warren a lot.

    She was already declining but she’s really fallen off in the last two weeks. All it really did for Bernie was make the people that didn’t like him already dislike him even more.

    I doubt the Des Moines Register’s endorsement is going to be enough to get Warren over 15% in Iowa tbh. I think (or hope) after New Hampshire she’ll bow out and support Bernie.

  36. Here's my question how long do you sit on these videos before you push them out. We already know what happened. Bernie Sanders went to #1 in National and State polls and Warren attack backfired on her. What are you talking about

  37. This was a really good video, but I will go down with the ship before I ever vote for that snake Warren… Bernie or Bust.

  38. Another anodyne milquetoast video in which you don’t say anything significant. Please just stop talking about this altogether. It’s obvious you’re never going to hold Warren accountable for this stunt.

  39. Video suggestion: An unbised analysis if the impeachment trial of Trump. (It’s hard to know what is fact when everyone we hear is so biased- e.g. Senators and media)

  40. Overall, it seems like the incident caused a mini-Sanders surge. I think, at the very least, the Warren Campaign hoped this would help stop the bleeding of support that’s been happening to her campaign since around November. So far, it looks like that hasn’t happened. I don’t necessarily think this incident hurt her campaign as a whole that much, but it didn’t do anything to help her campaign bounce back like she may have hoped for or expected.

  41. Is said that the corona virus was transmitted from Warren to humans… I mean from snakes to humans, sorry I confused those two very easy

  42. Very disappointing that Warren would attack the only person running who has fought for working class families for 40 years, and one of her greatest progressive allies.

  43. Still showing charts that are NOT readable by the viewer! Need to highlight in some visual way what what you are claiming the charts show…

  44. I'm curious as to what you think of the theory that she's potentially forming an alliance with Biden or angling for a spot in his administration. She's been loath to go after him on policy, despite his being the architect of the bankruptcy bill.

    IMO, the sooner we stop thinking of Warren as an ally, the better.

  45. How do we heal the progressive movement so that we can defeat Biden? We need to rally around the strongest progressive who will fight for Medicare for All and other progressive policies like the Green New Deal and getting big money out of politics.

  46. I had been holding my breath every debate waiting for Sanders and Warren to attack each other. The moment has come and pass. The “non-handshake” and comments made to one another after the debate made me feel really uncomfortable and emotional.
    As progressives I think we all were hoping that there would be no riff between the two. Yet if this is the worst of it I am relieved. It could of been worse.

    The polling has been very interesting. It seems as if we are still on a similar course of Bernie gaining momentum and Liz losing it.
    I was super worried that the NBC watching, corporate-feminist circles would howl for Bernie’s blood. Even that political niche realizes that Warren’s accusations are quite outlandish, considering Bernie’s political track record.
    I hope both teams can get together and realign themselves as the progressive front America needs. I hope they are a joint ticket. I would sincerely vote for either one with, the other as their running partner.

  47. The good news is the the back stabbing of Bernie by Warren hasn't stopped Bernie's movement it's only made it stronger and it hasn't divided the progressive left its only unified it behind Bernie Sanders

  48. As much as I dislike Bernie's policies, Warren refusing to shake his hand was incredibly petty and disgusting to watch. It's not like he murdered her whole family, like come on just shake his damn hand. I am all for finding new ways to criticize Bernie but there's a zero percent chance he ever said a woman can't be president. If Bernie can be praised for anything, it's his consistent message.

  49. CNN has come out to say that Warren's camp told them about it…it's all Warren, with CNN going along with it. Warren is a POS. All the lying throughout her career, the fact that she was part of the GOP when they were the dregs of humanity like they are now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *